~ politics for the people

Daily Mail’s hypocrisy over the age of foreigners is blindingly hypocritical

Well done to the Angry Yorkshireman for highlighting the cognitive dissonance that Daily Mail readers are expected to swallow uncomplainingly.

Of course, this is the media organ that runs a photo column down the right-hand side of its website containing image after image of scantily-clad celebrities (if you can call them that), praising their physical attributes, no matter how young they may be.

So the leaning towards leering at very young girls is ingrained in the psyche of that extremely-popular site.

Doesn’t that worry you?

The Daily Mail has been stirring up outrage and hatred about the fact that some of the tiny number of teenage refugees accepted into Britain look older than they are.

The idea of inciting hatred against refugees who look older than they are is bad enough in its own right, but to run a front page story inciting outrage about teenagers who look older than they are alongside a story that celebrates a 15 year old girl for looking older than she is and drools over her “sophistication” and “jaw dropping bone structure” is extraordinary stuff.

There seem to be two possible options here.

Either the Daily Mail editorial staff are so stupid that they were incapable of spotting the cognitive dissonance inducing juxtaposition of their hate campaign against old-looking teenage migrants next to a piece that drools all over a 15 year old girl for looking grown-up and sophisticated.

Or the Daily Mail editorial team are deliberately taking the piss out of their readership by juxtaposing the two things so they can have a good laugh about how Daily Mail readers are so damned stupid that they’re completely immune to cognitive dissonance.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

30 thoughts on “Daily Mail’s hypocrisy over the age of foreigners is blindingly hypocritical”

These hard-line reactionary ‘rags’ like the Daily Mail/Express/Torygraph are really spewing forth their hatred and venom. There is no doubt they are helping to incite racial hatred and the nasty government is sitting back and letting them do it. Disgraceful state of affairs.

There is a huge difference between a young girl banging on the make up to look older, nothing new there they have been getting in pubs at a younger age than boys for decades, and the clearly older than claimed men being brought here ostensibly as children. It is not bigotry, which those bigots who think there is more than one human race would claim, but annoyance that these young men who have left their own nation and travelled through many safe nations to get to Calais are being allowed to come here under the pretence they are children, no disonance , not hatred, no venom just understandable concern.

Have you not ever heard anyone describe young people as being aged by their experiences? Of fatigue, or horror, making them look like old people?
The trouble is, we are all armchair experts. Put yourself in the position of the doctors and it isn’t so easy.

I entirely agree that, to quote from NMac’s comment, “These hard-line reactionary ‘rags’ like the Daily Mail/Express/Torygraph are really spewing forth their hatred and venom.” However, do not let that blind you to the fact that the Scandinavian countries, not noted as hotbeds of fascism, have seen the number of asylum applications from ‘ensamkommande barn’ – alone-coming (and almost exclusively male) ‘children’ – drop drastically following the application of various age-determination tests. Even the overwhelmingly politically correct mass media has reported cases of (male) ‘children’ in their mid to late 30s being found in supposedly mid-teenage school classes – and it is NOT an insignificant percentage which has been found to be lying about their age! Check out Norway, Finland, Denmark and now, eventually, even Sweden!

What I took from the hysteria that, at present, surrounds those teenaged refugees is that life has dealt them so hard a blow that they look, in some cases, tens of years beyond their actual age. The outrage that we should be feeling is not that of people trying to subvert the system but that children are having their lives destroyed and their childhoods robbed while those who could do something closed their eyes and ears and passed by on the other side. As for Cindy Crawford’s daughter… she’s Cindy Crawford’s daughter. Am I supposed to care? Maybe, this is why I stopped reading the papers. “‘Child Migrants’?” Why the inverted commas? That is this country, all over and has been the case for many years; Guilty unless, or until you can prove otherwise.

In what way are we even second rate other than having allowed ourselves to be governed by a foreign unelected government for 40+years, why do people such as yourself keep talking us down, and if we are that bad I would suggest you go to a first rate nation whatever your definition or opinion is of that classification.

I would say we are second-rate for having allowed ourselves to be governed by an unelected domestic government for nearly nine years. Brown was not elected into his role as prime minister. Cameron was not elected by a majority of voters at all, and May has not been elected by anybody.
As for your suggestion to Mr Laycock: Why did you not do the same during all the years you campaigned for the UK to leave the EU? If it was that bad, why did you not emigrate to a nation that wasn’t part of it?
Sauce for the goose, Barry.

So you don’t think that having a bunch of unelected failed politicians in brussels makes us second rate, but an elected parliament in westminster, and every leader you spoke of was elected, we do not actually elect the prime minister, this is a spurious argument on your part, I didn’t leave because this is my nation and I want what is best for it inclusive of self governance, unlike Mr Laycock I have never talked down my own nation, I always said we could be better alone.

We elect the party of government based on the policies of the leader. When the leader changes, the policies change. Theresa May is a case in point; her policies are not the same as Cameron’s. Don’t forget, also, that Cameron did not win a majority in 2010 and it is believed that enough Tory candidates cheated to prove that he did not win one in 2015 either. We have had unelected governments since 2007.
It’s Mr Laycock’s country – and mine – as well, and your argument – suggesting that we do not want what is best for it – is insulting.
You’d better modify your tone and do a bit more thinking before responding.

We do not elect the leader of the parties unless we are members of that party, and as far as I know there has never been a unanimous acceptance of the leader of any party the members actually have a bearing on the way the party heads with its ideas. I think most people are aware that Clegg sold out a resurgent party for a meaningless title of deputy prime minister in 2010, which lead to a coalition government . Mr haycock presented this as a factual situation, “Well the UK and its press sink lower and lower with lie after lie now we are a third rate country I expect nothing less” I asked him to define his claim that we are third rate, and what he considers to be first rate, it is clear that having made the claim he has not responded to the question, instead allowing you to make a tangental argument, which did not support his claim that we are a third rate nation. I believe in my nation, and find the comments like third rate nation not only untrue but insulting for the people of this nation as a whole inclusive of yourself Mike.

I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make. We vote for parties based on the policies set by their leaders; when the leader changes mid-Parliament, so do the policies and, if the leader is also the prime minister, this means we have an unelected government, as we have not had a chance to vote for anyone on the basis of the new set of policies being enacted on our behalf. It doesn’t matter if we have elected the leader or not. What matters is whether we have had a chance to elect anybody at all, based on the new policies.
Yes, my argument is different to that put forward by Mr LAYCOCK; I was leaving it to him to answer on the points with which you challenged him. I dare say he’ll make his own contribution in due course.
I am glad that you do not believe the UK is a third-rate nation, despite being a member of that horrible European Union you hate so much. It can’t be so bad after all, then.

Well Mr Laycock claimed we are a third rate nation, as we are still members of the eu I can only assume that he means we are already third rate, and that would be the case of being a mere state of the eu rather than an independent nation, we can only assume that 43 years of membership has done us no favours. I don’t consider that I am electing a prime minister when I cast a vote, rather I vote for the person standing who appears to be the best person for the job, unfortunately these days it is getting harder to do with prospective parliamentary candidates being parachuted into what they consider safe seats by central office, as was cameron when he lost the tory safe seat in Stafford.

You are trying to twist the other commenter’s words. Stop.
We don’t have to assume 43 years’ membership of the EU has done us no favours because the opposing evidence is all around us. There are plenty of useful additions to the UK that would not be here without the EU – and its benefit to our economy may become apparent very soon, when it is gone.
As I mentioned before, nobody is saying that you vote for a prime minister because that is not the way our system works. You vote for the party and its policies. When the prime minister changes, so do the policies, and then you haven’t voted for them and we have an unelected government. I know you understand this but I don’t mind reiterating it because other readers will cotton on while you are still playing dumb.
All of the above being said, I certainly agree with you that political party central offices – on any side – should not ‘parachute’ candidates into what they consider safe seats, for any reason. Candidates should come from the local membership.

I thought the idea to determine age by looking at teeth was quite funny. (Don’t they do that for horses?) I suppose it’s the wisdom tooth that they’d be looking for which erupts, usually, from seventeen to twenty-five years of age. Kind of Nazi-like though isn’t it? And more than a little creepy?

Yeah?
Remember when Theresa May was sending vans around London with racist signs telling illegal immigrants to “go home”?
A multitude of UK citizens got reported to the police because they “look foreign”.
You can’t tell all that much by looking.
There will be people who try to play the system, of course – but don’t just assume they are lying.

I know what it is like for society to assume the worst of someone because of their situation. If someone had bothered to read my “care file” then I wouldn’t have been treat like a young offender from 13 yrs just because I was in care. I have never offended because I had been made to be terrified of authority figures, in a way I still am.

Personally I don’t care how young or how old, these people need humanitarian help!!
The Tories are known to be utterly sub-human!
It parallels how the sick and disabled are being treated, except for these poor people there is no benefit of the doubt, when they claim ESA they are automatically judged as criminals, all because no-one will take time to check information on each individuals case.
The continual Wrong Judging of people is stopping this nation from being a fair influence in the world and remaining the biggest problem.
I am probably wrong but that is how I see it, from a little experience of my own.

Indeed Joanna many sick incapacitated and disabled people have been denied any benefits due to the draconian manner in which the DWP works, however these “post children” do not have to deal with the dwp.